Published: 17 June 2010(GMT+10)

Image by Darren Cunroe, news.com.au

Homo gautengensis

Usually media announcements of new supposed apemen are paraded in an ostentatious
manner, accompanied by campfire stories of how the specimen was found, replete with
photos of the prized fossil in the hands of the lead paleoanthropologist. In comparison,
the unveiling of the alleged new hominid species
Homo gautengensis
occurred with much less fanfare, although not entirely unnoticed. Perhaps one reason
for the lower profile was that the discoverer of this new species, Darren Curnoe,
did not exactly hit pay-dirt in the ground. Rather, he discovered the new species
by sorting through the garbage bag of fossil items dumped by others into the taxon
Homo habilis, in particular cranial, mandibular and dental elements of
southern African specimens.1

Overall, the specimens making up Homo habilis (sensu lato2) are generally considered
too heterogeneous3 to all
belong to the one species. Some consider Homo habilis an invalid taxon,
and there is debate among evolutionists whether the majority of fossils assigned
to this category should be reassigned to Australopithecus or some other
genus instead.4,5 Also, some evolutionists have
argued that a few of the Homo habilis specimens might represent Homo erectus
instead,6
although the list of such specimens appears to be diminishing—at least in
this author’s opinion. Recognizing that a particular sample of southern African
Homo habilis fossils were ‘morphologically too distinct’ to
be accommodated within Homo habilis, Curnoe decided to assign them to the
novel species Homo gautengensis instead.1

Whether a fossil specimen or fossil species belongs in the genus Homo or not depends
on what is meant by the genus Homo.

From an evolutionary perspective what Cunroe has done is in principle valid. However,
from a creationist point of view, species such as Homo gautengensis (real
or imagined) are unlikely to correlate with the biblical kind,7 the latter generally being a broader taxon than
the species. For example, all members of the genus Australopithecus may
well be traced back to just one or two different biblical kinds. Whether
a fossil specimen or fossil species belongs in the genus Homo or not depends
on what is meant by the genus Homo. If the genus Homo is a compilation
of fossil specimens that were fully human, that is, descendants of Adam and Eve,
then obviously extinct apes8
such as the australopiths9
are omitted. In that case members of the genus Homo are all part of the
same human kind, regardless of whether the fossils are designated as belonging
to Homo sapiens, Homo neanderthalensis, Homo heidelbergensis
or Homo erectus. Also, all species in the genus Homo would need
to be reclassified as Homo sapiens if Homo sapiens is equated
with the human kind (since all descendants of Adam can intermarry, they
are obviously the same species). However, for ease of discussion, since the anthropology
literature is saturated with the terms, it is often convenient to use the above
names for the different human fossil ‘species’ when referring to them.
Of course, evolutionists do not look at it this way, and would define the makeup
of the genus Homo differently, but it is a useful classification scheme
from a creation point of view.

The question of interest here then is whether Homo gautengensis should really
be categorized as Australopithecus gautengensis instead, if indeed it is
a species. That is, does it represent humans or extinct australopith apes? Although
the type specimen (holotype) for Homo gautengensis is the partial Sterkfontein
cranium Stw 53, the list of other representatives used to describe the species (paratypes)
is quite long.10
Stw 53 is a heavily reconstructed cranium, discovered in 1976, that has previously
been (or still is) assigned to or associated with Australopithecus africanus,
a robust australopithecine, or Homo habilis.11 Kuman and Clarke list several major morphological
traits of Stw 53 that they believe warrant its inclusion in the genus Australopithecus,
including an estimated cranial capacity in the Australopithecus range,
teeth that are very large (typical of Australopithecus), a nasal skeleton
‘flattened as in the apes and in Australopithecus’, and a braincase
that ‘is frontally narrow and restricted’ (typical of Australopithecus
africanus, for example, specimen Sts 5—nicknamed ‘Mrs Ples’).12 No stone tools were associated with the Stw 53 fossil cranium.13 As noted by Cartmill and Smith, paleoanthropologist
Milford Wolpoff ‘asserts that Stw 53 most closely resembles A. africanus
specimens from Sterkfontein Member 4 in such features as its shallow mandibular
fossa, the form of its mastoid region, its vault shape as seen from rear, and the
presence of anterior pillars in its face.’14
From a creation perspective it would seem that Stw 53 is an australopith, and so
does not belong in the genus Homo.

Another specimen included in Homo gautengensis is the Swartkrans partial
cranium SK 847 (as a paratype). Apart from Stw 53, the most significant other fossil
specimen designated by Curnoe to the species Homo gautengensis appears
to be SK 847, and a significant part of the paper is taken up with comparing the
above two crania.15 Curnoe
and Tobias earlier compared Stw 53 and SK 847 and came to the conclusion that they
were both of the same species, and ‘that both can be accommodated within the
hypodigm of H. habilis.’16 The SK 847 cranium has also been associated with Homo erectus, but the
incompleteness of the cranium has made any definite diagnosis difficult.17 If the conclusion of the Curnoe and Tobias comparison
is correct, and Stw 53 and SK 847 belonged to the same species,18 then they would both belong to the same species
of australopith, but not the genus Homo. The only other cranial paratype
included by Curnoe in the new species Homo gautengensis appears to be the
highly compressed (superior-inferior) juvenile cranium SK27, but its inclusion seems
to be more for what its dental remains indicate, rather than its cranium.19

No postcranial material was included in the description of the species “because
there are no clear associations between the craniodental remains used to diagnose
the new taxon and any postcranial fossils.”10 The age span of the
species is stated as being from ~2.0 to 0.82 million years BP, and is said to make
Homo gautengensis “probably the earliest recognized species in the
human genus”, with its longevity “apparently well in excess of H. habilis.”20

Interestingly, in a National Geographic article by James Owen about the
study, Curnoe is noted as believing that Homo gautengensis appeared “too
late in the evolutionary time line to be our direct ancestor”, but that “the
potential new species had humanlike characteristics”.21
This leads to an important point. The view that if the australopiths were only apes
then they would show no humanlike traits is a false hypothesis, used by some evolutionists
to set up a straw man of the creationist position that they can then easily falsify
(that is, any humanlike characteristics are used as evidence that australopiths
were intermediates between apes and humans),22
but which in reality does not represent the creationist position. Nor is it even
logical, since modern apes clearly demonstrate many characters in common with humans.

The article by Owen states that “Compared with modern humans, the new species
had proportionally long arms, a projecting face somewhat like a chimp’s, larger
teeth, and a smaller brain—though not too small for verbal communication.”21
How it can be known that “the new species had proportionally long arms”
is unclear, given that no postcranial material was associated with the species.
However, computed tomography (CT) scans of the bony labyrinth of the inner ear have
shown that the semicircular canal dimensions in the crania of Stw 53 indicated that
it “relied less on bipedal behaviour than the australopithecines”.23 The above study by Spoor
et al also referred to the “modern-human-like labyrinth of SK 847”,
which was said to be “consistent with its attribution to H. erectus,
and the extreme differences in labyrinthine morphology between
SK 847 and Stw 53 make attribution of both specimens to the same species, on this
evidence alone, highly unlikely.”23 Hence, there is a real possibility
that Homo gautengensis is based on a mixture of fossil fragments derived
from both australopith and Homo erectus, which would be unsurprising given
the state of incompleteness of the partial SK 847 cranium. Hence, we are back to
the original problem of Homo habilis (where the fossil specimens SK 847
and Stw 53 were earlier placed)—that it is most likely a compilation of fossil
specimens from different species, most of them belonging to the australopiths, but
perhaps also a few fragments from Homo erectus. It reminds one of the old
saying, the more things change the more they stay the same.

The study by Curnoe is said to cast doubt on the new ‘missing link’
Australopithecus sediba being “the ‘key transitional species’
between the apelike australopithecines and the first human species.”21
After a discussion with Curnoe, Owen states:

Hence, it seems that more controversy lies ahead with respect to Homo gautengensis
and Australopithecus sediba, which is par for the course in paleoanthropology.

“The newfound Australopithecus—with its tiny brain and long,
apelike arms and wrists adapted to life in trees—’is much more
primitive than Homo gautengensis’ yet they both ‘lived at the
same time and in the same place,’ he said.

“Assuming A. sediba co-existed with the new early human species,
then A. sediba is ‘less likely to be the ancestor of humans’
than its proponents say it is—it’s simply too late in the fossil record‚
Curnoe argued.”21

Paleontologist Fred Spoor is stated as noting that “the A. sediba
team had argued that Stw 53 is a more primitive skull than that of A. sediba.
In other words, H. gautengensis may not be human at all but an apelike
australopithecine.”23 Hence, it seems that more controversy lies
ahead with respect to Homo gautengensis and Australopithecus sediba,
which is par for the course in paleoanthropology.

Creationist study surprises—on the downside

The Australopithecus sediba find was discussed earlier by the current author,24 and since then there has
been little more news out from the Lee Berger camp concerning their fossil find.
The most surprising news about Australopithecus sediba, after the initial
fanfare surrounding its announcement died down, was the interpretation of the new
fossil species by creationist Todd Wood. Wood applied statistical baraminological
techniques (baraminic distance correlation and multidimensional scaling) to craniodental
character states (postcranial information was not considered), with the datasets
used for this selected from the literature.25
From his analysis he found that “the present results indicate that Homo habilis,
Homo rudolfensis, and—most surprisingly—Australopithecus sediba
belong in the human holobaramin.”26
Hence, they were all pronounced fully human (descendants of Adam and Eve), despite
Wood admitting to “sediba’s extremely ape-like forearms”.27 As a result, he comes up
with the farcical statement that “the dispersal of the human population from
Babel would presumably have been led by H. habilis and H. rudolfensis,
specimens of which appear stratigraphically lower than any other human species.”28 Moreover, his comment about
“the significance of human-like australopiths and the ape-like humans”26
appears almost to concede the issue to the evolutionists.

Wood’s analysis at best raises issues for further investigation, and certainly
does not warrant sweeping conclusions that effectively extend the range of human
variation to apish creatures swinging in trees like Tarzan. Wood’s datasets
of character states are the same as those used in evolutionary cladistics studies,
and as such many of the same problems and pitfalls inherent in cladistic studies
apply to his baraminological study. For example, one major issue is that the morphological
characters used need to be independent units of information, otherwise intercorrelated
characters can incorrectly bias the outcome of any analysis.29

According to evolutionist Glenn Conroy:

“One must try to understand the developmental interrelationships among morphological
characters before ‘atomizing’ them into discrete characters for phylogenetic
analyses in any cladistic study … It may often be the case that long lists
of character traits used in such analyses (such as those enumerated above for the
robust australopith cranium30) may actually reflect only a small number of developmental variables. These far
fewer variables, if properly understood, should be the ones used in cladistic studies,
not the original atomized list of characters”.31

Wood’s analysis … certainly does not warrant sweeping conclusions that
effectively extend the range of human variation to apish creatures swinging in trees
like Tarzan.

The problem, as stated by Daniel Lieberman, is that “no one has come up with
a satisfactory way to define or test the independence of morphological characters”.29
Cladistic analysis using morphological character traits has been unsuccessful in
human evolutionary studies, as one would expect if evolution is false. As a result
of their study evolutionists Mark Collard and Bernard Wood concluded that “the type of
craniodental characters that have hitherto been used in hominin phylogenetics are
probably not reliable for reconstructing the phylogenetic relationships of higher
primate species and genera, including those among the hominins.”32 In 1990 evolutionist Erik Trinkaus commented that
until better methods were established cladistics would “remain little more
than a heuristic device for the preliminary sorting of the known hominid fossil
record.”33 One doubts
much has changed. Todd Wood never even discusses specific craniodental character states
in his analysis, and one doubts that he has fared any better than evolutionists
in finding a solution to the problem posed by the interrelationships of morphological
characters—just one of many problems associated with these types of studies.

Used in the hands of someone who acknowledges the limitations, these studies may
have applications. However, when used recklessly as some kind of a ‘be all
and end all’ human-australopith ‘truth detector’ the outcome is
worse than useless—it is downright misleading. In some ways the result of
Wood’s analysis is so wrong it can be refuted by simple observation. Consider
the similarities of the Australopithecus sediba cranium to that of the
Australopithecus africanus cranium Sts 71 from Sterkfontein.34 Then ask yourself, is a technique to be trusted
that finds more similarities between the Australopithecus sediba skull
and a modern human skull, than between the Australopithecus sediba skull
and the Australopithecus africanus skull, to the point where Australopithecus
sediba is classified as human and Australopithecus africanus is
classified as an extinct australopith-type ape? Something is not right. One wonders
about the next ‘baraminological’ entry into the human family.

Further Reading

References

Curnoe, D., A review of early Homo in southern Africa focusing
on cranial, mandibular and dental remains, with the description of a new species
(Homo gautengensis sp. Nov.), HOMO-J. Comp. Hum. Biol., 61:151–177,
2010; pp 171–172. Return to text.

In this context sensu lato refers to Homo habilis defined
in a wide or broad sense. For example, it would encompass specimens assigned to
Homo rudolfensis. Return to text.

Means having widely dissimilar elements or constituents. Return to text.

I use the term ‘apes’ here in a broad ‘lay’
sense to mean apelike non-human primates. This is not intended to suggest that australopiths,
for example, are merely minor variants of extant apes, nor to contradict assessments
by evolutionists such as Oxnard that their anatomy was uniquely different in many
respects from both extant apes and humans. But if they were alive today, they would
probably be regarded as ‘apes’. Return to text.

Collectively all alleged hominids outside the genus Homo are
sometimes informally referred to as ‘australopiths’ by evolutionists,
but when talking more specifically the genus and/or species name is used. The term
‘australopithecine’ refers specifically to members of the genus Australopithecus.
Return to text.

Owen, J., Oldest Human Species Found: May Have Been Cannibal?
26 May 2010 (Available at <news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/05/100526-science-homo-gautengensis-human-species/>,
30 May 2010). Return to text.

Senter, P., Were Australopithecines Ape–Human Intermediates
or Just Apes? A Test of Both Hypotheses Using the “Lucy” Skeleton,
The
American Biology Teacher, 72(2):70–76, 2010; p. 70.
Return to text.

Conroy lists many characteristics of the robust australopith
skull that may result simply “from the developmental consequences of having
extremely large postcanine teeth and relatively small anterior teeth. The massive
molars require a tall, vertical ascending ramus to anchor them, as well as to anchor
the massive muscles of mastication that insert on this part of the mandible (e.g.,
masseters, lateral and medial pterygoids, temporalis). The small front teeth alter
the configuration of the floor of the nose. The interface between the nose and the
mouth, the hard palate, has to readjust its orientation and thicken during development,
thereby setting off a cascade of interrelated ontogenetic patterns that ultimately
define the robust australopith face and neurocranium.” From: Conroy, G.C.,
Reconstructing Human Origins, Second Edition, W.W. Norton & Company, New York,
pp. 235–236, 2005. Return to text.